The repeated violations of partnership rights necessitate dissolution of the firm, following established legal entitlements upheld through multiple court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

Context and Background:

1. This is a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in connection with the dissolution of a Partnership Deed dated June 14, 2023 (“Partnership Deed”) in relation to a partnership firm called M/s. Saikrupa Medical and General Stores (“Saikrupa”). The firm carries out the activity of running a chemist shop right across one of the busiest public hospitals in Mumbai – the K.E.M. Hospital in Parel.

2. It is the case of the Petitioners Ms. Namrata Tapan Bose and Mr. Aniket Tapan Bose (“Bose Siblings”) that their have rights systematically and consistently been frustrated by the conduct of the Respondents over the years, disenfranchising them as a matter of fact despite their legal entitlement having been declared in three rounds of litigation culminating in the Supreme Court too having upheld their rights.

3. Feeling disenfranchised and disentitled to any and every benefit that ought to be available to them as a matter of right, the Bose Siblings have sought to dissolve Saikrupa, which is a partnership at will. The Partnership Deed itself is the outcome of the the Petitioner’s rights in Saikrupa having been successfully declared in the three rounds of litigation, with the Supreme Court too refusing to interfere.

4. I have heard Mr. Nigel Quraishy, Learned Counsel on behalf of the Bose Siblings, Dr. Uday Warunjikar on behalf of Respondent No. 1, Ms. Sunita Vilas Gaonkar (“Gaonkar”) and Ms. Archana Khan, Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Mr. Nitin Bose (“Nitin”), at great length and on multiple occasions. With a view to satisfy myself in this equitable jurisdiction that no firm orders are passed in relation to the final dissolution of the firm without adequate examination and assessment of the facts and the conduct of the parties, in order to see if the firm could survive or the parties could reach a resolution of their positions, I have given Gaonkar and Nitin multiple opportunities to put in place a via media that would address every party’s interests. However, the conduct of Gaonkar has satisfied me that there is no scope whatsoever to expect any legitimate or reasonable conduct for light interventions to be made. This will be seen from the subsequent portions of this judgement.

5. Despite being victorious all the way to the Supreme Court, the Bose Siblings’ rights have remained virtually written on water. The Bose Siblings have been treated as persona non grata by the Respondents and their decision to dissolve Saikrupa is well understandable and rational. The Bose Siblings state that they are left with no option but to dissolve the partnership which is explicitly a partnership at will as provided for in Clause 3 of the Partnership Deed. Other clauses in the Partnership Deed are relevant as well, and I shall allude to the same separately in this judgement.

6. The factual history of this case is telling and some of it needs to be recounted. This Petition is not a simple case of a partner seeking to dissolve a firm seeking some basic interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Act for the first time. There is a legacy of an abusive relationship that the Bose Siblings have had to suffer at the hands of Gaonkar and Nitin. After the Bose Siblings’ father, Mr. Tapan Bose (“Tapan”), a 25% partner in Saikrupa, died on February 2, 2002, the Bose Siblings’ entitlement to be made partners of Saikrupa in relation to their father’s share, was usurped by Ni